The authors conduct an exposé on the deterministic denunciations of Qualitative Data Analysis Software (QDAS) and how citation errors keep these criticisms alive. They use a zombie metaphor to describe more than two decades of battling these seemingly mindless assessments of QDAS that keep coming –despite their decay – and simply will not die. Focusing exclusively on the criticism of separation/distancing, which alleges that the computer and the software interfere with the researcher’s familiarity with the data, the authors trace one current strand of this criticism through a literature genealogy. Three citation errors (half-truth, proxy, and hearsay) are identified to help dismantle the criticism that QDAS inevitably and negatively interferes with the researchers’ connection to the data. The article concludes with a reckoning about the role of QDAS experts in perpetuating these citation errors and provides four specific recommendations for all qualitative researchers; suggestions that amount to a more viable avenue for pursuing a cure.
ATLAS.ti, CAQDAS, Citation Error, Distancing, Literature Genealogy, NVivo, QDAS, Qualitative Data Analysis Software, Separation, Zombie
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License.
Recommended APA Citation
Jackson, K., Paulus, T., & Woolf, N. H. (2018). The Walking Dead Genealogy: Unsubstantiated Criticisms of Qualitative Data Analysis Software (QDAS) and the Failure to Put Them to Rest. The Qualitative Report, 23(13), 74-91. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss13/6
Discourse and Text Linguistics Commons, Other Arts and Humanities Commons, Other Rhetoric and Composition Commons, Publishing Commons, Scholarly Publishing Commons, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons, Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education Commons, Technical and Professional Writing Commons